Im confused between i7 2600k/2700k/3770k.I want to know which of them got the lowest temp after overclockiong( i have coolermaster x6 fan).And i want to know which motherboard is good for them and i want to know if the 2600k/2700k processors are compatible with ddr3-1600 mhz ram or not.

Is the Gskill ares 16gb(8gbx2) 1600 mhz good?because its low profile and i have coolermaster x6 fan(it is huge).Another question,if im not going to over clock my cpu,which cpu from i7 series you recommend?

Is the Gskill ares 16gb(8gbx2) 1600 mhz good?because its low profile and i have coolermaster x6 fan(it is huge).Another question,if im not going to over clock my cpu,which cpu from i7 series you recommend?

not really. If you can keep the 3770k cool itll overclock farther and use less power. Sandy bridge chips need to be overclock 300mhz higher then a ivy bridge chip to get the same performance, then theres more power consumption with that too.

Get the 3770k. its better then the 2600 and 2700k after overclocking. uses less power. If you don't have a sandy bridge chip already why get one when ivy bridge is out there?

not really. If you can keep the 3770k cool itll overclock farther and use less power. Sandy bridge chips need to be overclock 300mhz higher then a ivy bridge chip to get the same performance, then theres more power consumption with that too.

Get the 3770k. its better then the 2600 and 2700k after overclocking. uses less power. If you don't have a sandy bridge chip already why get one when ivy bridge is out there?

Click to expand...

So 3770k is better than 2600 & 2700K,but what about temperature after overclocking?.

Is the temperature of amd fx 6100 higher than ( i7 2600k/2700k/3770k)?

Click to expand...

No, but the 6100 also has a lower maximum temperature than Intel's SB and IVB chips though. Intel's chips are most likely more power efficient even if they do run a little hotter, but Intel's CPUs can also handle it.

No, but the 6100 also has a lower maximum temperature than Intel's SB and IVB chips though. Intel's chips are most likely more power efficient even if they do run a little hotter, but Intel's CPUs can also handle it.

No, about 2/3rds of the performance spread over more cores. Less performance per core = less performance overall at a lot of times. It would be nice if a lot of programs were multithreaded but we are still a long ways off from that day. You seem kinda indecisive though, are you sure that you are purchasing what you want or are you purchasing what you think you want?

The reason I ask is that I too recently "upgraded" to a 2600k system. Unfortunately, I purchased an MSI H67 chipset motherboard - as MSI stated it could overclock. Unfortunately, they were misleading since you cannot overclock the cpu - only integrated graphics, which I am not about to use. Technically, the chipset would overclock the CPU just aswell as the Z68 but Intel locked that feature out because, stated simply, Intel wants to be scumbags in that area. But, this motherboard was $45 early this year whereas a z68 board would have been over $100. Performance with the 2600k is not what I imagined - reason being is that I came from an AMD Athlon II x4 620 which, when overclocked to 3.8 GHz was exactly half as fast as the 2600k. (Except in floating point math where the AMD chip actually made the 2600k look like a Pentium 4 lol) The hyperthreading of the i7 series is a joke, just as it was with Pentium 4's, Windows 7 acts like those "cores" have the Ebola virus and doesn't even use them unless it has to.

I would not want to overclock this chip unless I was doing some sort of insanely demanding task every day (ie: not web surfing or gaming, I was stupid to upgrade techinically, and very stupid to spend the extra hundred on an i7 over an i5). I originally almost bought into the Socket 2011 platform because I was almost sold on the quad channel ram idea... Until I realized that nothing I could do with my computer would require more bandwidth at the current moment than dual channel ddr3-1333 offers.

If I did it all again I would get a $200 i5 if I didn't already have the old AMD x4. But as was, that $75 AMD chip is a much better value than a $200 i5 and only a slight downgrade, unnoticeable to most humans. But I'm not a big fan of either AMD or Intel products these days, they both have so annoying weaknesses. Get a decent CPU and just spend the few extra hundred on GPU power dude. I am running dual ATI 4890's and that's my bottleneck, GPU power is where it's at!

At this point in time, if you can afford a $300 processor, there is absolutely no reason to go AMD. They will disappoint in every area of performance to the 3 Intel processors you're looking at. I have the 2600k myself, got it when it first came out, and have had it running a constant 4.8ghz @ 69c ever since with a custom watercooling. From extensive research, the 3770k is definitely a better processor overall, but as others have mentioned, it gets a little hotter, and if you dont have watercooling or better the sandy bridge (ie: 2600k/2700k) will overclock better for you.

Bottom line, get the 3770k if you can find it for the same price, dont worry about the 2600k unless you can get it significantly cheaper. Also, make sure to get a p67/z68 or z75/z77 motherboard or you will be disappointed in the overclocking area.

the 3770k is definitely a better processor overall, but as others have mentioned, it gets a little hotter, and if you dont have watercooling or better the sandy bridge (ie: 2600k/2700k) will overclock better for you.

Click to expand...

Is the Corsair Hydro Series H100 Extreme Performance Liquid CPU Cooler good for 3770k?